Oct
16
2015

Apres Debbie Wasserman Schultz le deluge*.

Here’s a fun question to ask Democrats upset about the Debbie Wasserman Schultz / Tulsi Gabbard flap:

For most debate viewers and Democratic voters, the Gabbard flap, if it registered at all, was little more than a sideshow. But among Democratic officials and strategists, the dust-up was an embarrassing public spectacle—a boiling-over of long-simmering frustrations and resentments within the party hierarchy at a highly inopportune moment.

Who were they planning to replace Wasserman Schultz with? – Because that article didn’t even try to address the issue. Mostly because there’s no good answer: Debbie Wasserman Schultz may be a disastrous manager presiding over a debt-ridden DNC, but the Democratic party’s leadership cupboard is, well, bare. If Debbie Wasserman Schultz [goes], who are they going to get to replace her at this late a date?  It’d take the DNC six months just to shake itself out after a move this sudden, and by then we’d be halfway through the primary season.

Solution? I don’t have a solution and if I did I would not tell it to you. Geez, I’m not here to help these people. I’m here to point out weak points in their armor.

Via Hot Air Headlines.

Moe Lane

*Yes, the French is likely bad.

14 Comments

  • Antoninus Pius says:

    i don’t think it’s case of no one available to take the spot… who would want it? i wouldn’t. it’d be like captaining the Hindenburg just before landing. maybe they could get Sid Blumenthal to do it.

  • nicklevi86 says:

    Is Alan Grayson still an option? ‘Cause Alan Greyson should totally still be an option. But then, I also want a pony and a plastic rocket.

  • Darin_H says:

    Awful with her, even worse without.
    .
    .
    And I don’t even feel bad. Bed made.

  • Skip says:

    They could always throw a curve-ball and pick Boehner – I mean, it’s his natural constituency, he’s really good at raising money and helping the Democrats, so…

  • Mikey NTH says:

    Are you saying that the Democrats are also discontented with their establishment? That the conventional wisdom of the Democrat party leaders is being questioned – maybe even denounced? That political organizations and clans are not receiving the deference that is usually given them? That the same thing that is happening to the Republicans is happening to the Democrats, only the media (DwB-L)* is publishing one and trying to hide the other?
    Color me not surprised at all; we have been due for a “shaking of the political snow-globe” for a bit. We should find our way out of this one – it happens about every twenty-five years or so – as we usually do with a new consensus arrived at.**
    *Democrats with By-Lines – h/t Instapundit.
    **That consensus will be challenged and overturned in about twenty-five years or so. Healthy systems do that, change consensuses like people should change underwear – regularly. Unhealthy systems do it like the old Soviet Union – under duress by outraged members of the public.

    • acat says:

      It has been argued that there are two GOP parties, the gutless turds of the D.C. wing, and the, I suppose, not-turds ..
      .
      Likewise, it has been argued that there are two wings of the Dems, although I think stinging tentacles of the jellyfish is perhaps more apt .. they certainly squirt enough toxins and don’t noticeably coordinate with one another …
      .
      So .. Lessig represents the brighter Dems who haven’t figured out how the game is played (a non-stinging tentacle) while Hillary represents the highly venomous deadly Clinton tentacle, and Sanders represents a very different (but still toxic) tentacle ..
      .
      So .. yeah, there are arguably at least four functional parties right now… ‘s gonna be a year for the his’try books.
      .
      Mew

    • civiltruth says:

      The difference is that the Democratic establishment can buy off their grassroots with promises of more free stuff. Meanwhile the residue of the former Democratic Party (before the 70s revolutionaries and old-line Communists took over the Party) remain stuck in the bowels of Kubler-Ross because they simply can’t bear to assess the political realities of the 21st century.

      The Republican establishment likewise thinks that the Ancien Régime will go on forever, not realizing that the Jacobians have taken over the Democratic Party and are sharpening their blades.

  • civiltruth says:

    Debbie will remain until after the 2016 elections to shove Hillary down our throats. But once Hillary mounts the throne in 2017, she will sacrifice the ladies’ coven running the DNS to install her apparatchiks and clean out all opposition.

    If Hillary loses, then will come the night of the long knives.

  • bobby b says:

    Gabbard.

    At least, DW-S thought so.

  • bobby b says:

    P.S. Was the missing word “quits”, or “goes”?

  • Herp McDerp says:

    Would it be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing if the Democrat presidential nominee were to pick Debbie for the VP position?

  • Dan says:

    DWS, Pelosi, Warren, Hillary, Jarrett, Susan Rice, Samantha Powers…When did the Dems (and the left, in general) get taken over by “mean girls?”

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com